I learned from BBC today, that CERN has invited philosophers and theologians to debate the origins of the universe, following the discovery of the Higgs boson (or something of the sorts). Now, I can see how some philosophers can potentially contribute to certain questions regarding the origins of the universe, humanity, consciousness, morality etc. No problems there. They can ask some good questions and pave the way for science to find the answers. They may even provide some quasi-answers as well I guess.

Ken Ham is this very gifted guy, the leader of Answers in Genesis, an organization that promotes open thinking and science-based methodologies. Ken has recently made some fresh, highly intelligent and accurate comments. [/sarcasm]

Last night I was watching a debate between Christopher Hitchens and Frank Turek, on the question: “What best explains reality: theism or atheism?“. I could not help but notice that the same arguments were presented yet again by some religious apologist. Nevertheless, some of them I found interesting not in their argumentative prowess, but in that while they seem intuitively wrong, sometimes I am hard pressed to express my opinion on the subject. Therefore, I am writing this post mostly to document my thoughts, and hope to generate some discussion or provoke some thinking in my numerous (three to be precise) audience.

So the Church of England has “decided” that science and religion are apparently compatible (a vague, loosely defined word in this context, but nevermind…) at a general synod in London. Schizophrenia!

Funny species, those Intelligent Design proponents (aka IDiots) are. They keep repeating the same vacuous arguments (well, not even arguments really, more like delusions) until they manage to convince themselves. Take for example this award winning quote from Casey Luskin.

Lately, many Catholic Christians (”journalists” or simple bloggers) have declared that: “science proves pope was right about condoms“… I find the use (or better, misuse) of the rules of logic by those people baffling. I also find the gross misdirection away from the actual problem with such statements baffling. Let me explain. Here are the facts of the case.

[source: wearscience]

From “Talk Reason” and Michael Luciano I became aware of how the Discovery Institute (DI) -one of the most visible Intelligent Design (ID) think tanks and propaganda machine, defines Intelligent Design. The Discovery Institute and other ID proponents have been trying to persuade us that ID is really a scientific theory -nevermind they make no testable predictions and only rely on negative evidence. Instead of tackling this claim (which has been discarded a million times before) Luciano pretty much lets the DI “scientists” demolish it themselves!